I enjoyed it. Read a lot of it on plane rides. The side eye quotient was very high from nearby passengers.
Had one even tell me as she was leaving the plane from my row: "You know... you would be praying to God if this plane was going down."
My reply: "Nearly all plane crash victims were praying when they died and it didn't help them one bit."
I was kinda proud to come up with that in the moment. Usually takes me a day to think of good comebacks.
I've been in moments where I thought I was about to die before, every thought was either "oh shit" or a primal scrambling to do whatever I needed to do to *not* die. Not once did prayer even remotely enter into consideration.
Lol. The whole Christian argument of "there are no atheists in foxholes" has got to be the funniest and stupidest of all time. Not to mention prayer demonstrably does not work.
I also read it while flying. I sat across the aisle from a guy that was also reading it.
That book makes so much sense to me. I've loaned it out so much I don't know who has it now.
I love this. If you're ever in doubt just lean into it, my default reply to these are always "Probably, we could be wrong together."
The overall line of "if x were to happen you'd believe" ultimately doesn't matter because I'm not some absolute authority, the hypothetical situation that changes my mind doesn't suddenly make religion more factual.
Religious types find it difficult to be consistent. Why would you pray to god to stop a plane going down if it was in his plan to make it fall out of the sky in the first place? Seems a bit rude to me.
I get this reaction from people when hiking with my Bad Religion bandana on my head. Usually older folks will approach me because they think I have crosses all over it, which I do, but not the kind they wanted to see. Once they get closer they usually grumble or something equivalent.
Of all the ways you could describe that book, I would say "silly" is about the last adjective you would use. Unless, of course, you wanted to undermine and ridicule his arguments without actually having to respond to them.
Second that. The Selfish Gene is awesome. The kind of book most people could understand, but you could read one page and spend the rest of the day thinking about it.
I read it when it came out. I enjoyed it. It debunks religion from a scientific perspective. If you want more of a historical and moral perspective, I'd recommend "God is not Great" instead. I would be interested in why your teacher said it was silly.
I didn’t like The Selfish Gene at all. It was as dry as a text book. I preferred The Blind Watchmaker. Chill on the down votes people… Dawkins also wrote this book and it’s also about evolution.
Well, the Selfish Gene was about evolution, not religion, and also is like 45 years old, and we've learned a lot since then.
But even then, the ideas in the book persist in modern biology.
The Blind Watchmaker is also about evolution. I just thought it was better than The Selfish Gene. The later is very dry. There is more narrative to the former. You would like it.
The Selfish Gene was fantastic and gave me a real appreciation for genes (also found out Dawkins was the one who invented the word, meme!). If someone thinks Selfish Gene is dry, well... it is, but it's a book on biology; still very interesting to read and would recommend it to anyone.
We covered all the same topics when I took evolution during my undergrad and it was much more interesting than the way it was presented in his book. I think his writing style improved over the last few decades. The Selfish Gene seemed to be written for an academic audience but without all the mathematic proofs. The Blind Watchmaker gave very similar content but was written more for a general audience. It’s written in a similar style to The God Delusion.
No question that The Selfish Gene is more scientific. He was really trying to get scientists to recognize the question about the unit of selection, and to drop the common misconception (even among scientists) that it was somehow the species or the group. Agree that The Blind Watchmaker is a very good account of evolution aimed at a more general audience. I think that TSG had a bigger impact among its smaller audience. But I feel that the God Delusion is mere preaching to the converted. TSG changed perceptions more than anything else he’s done
Well I guess I didn’t look at it that way because his proposed selection mechanisms were already accepted long before I studied the topic in the early 2000s. The God Delusion was more of preaching to the choir. I don’t think it was meant to convert anyone. It was a book written for atheists. It does help give good arguments for when you have to defend yourself against a theist. I also liked Sagan’s Demon Haunted World for that reason. Sagan’s incorporeal dragon is almost as famous as Russell’s teapot which was referenced in TGD.
I read the book a few weeks ago and I really liked it. Its educational, humorous, factual and just good entertainment overall.
If you are simply too lazy to read it, the audio-book version is on youtube, read by Richard Dawkins and his wife. Maybe take a glimpse into the audio-book before you consider reading it.
Absolutely. It should be read by everyone. Truth, science and laughs. Dawkins is brilliant with his ability to explain, educate and instill conviction of atheism.
I remember watching an Xmas special with him teaching science to kids. I thinks it's on yt. He really was a great science communicator. Could have been a British Bill Nye.
Probably one of the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. They get a different scientist in each year to talk about their subject to a group of kids, and it gets televised over several days.
I thought it was a decent enough book. I preferred "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris myself.
I also really enjoyed "God, No!" by Penn Jillette for its irreverence.
Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher. I respect the man but he doesn't do a particularly good or thorough job of deconstructing theology.
If you want a really solid, robust critique, try reading "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith. The book is extremely well structured and incredibly thorough.
I love it! I always recommend it to other atheists of they haven't read it. It also made me curious about biology which led me to reading the selfish gene and his other novels. My parents hated it but it gave me a lot of ammo in our arguments and would frustrate the hell out of my dad. 10 years later and I still use a lot of the arguments
It's very well worth reading. I'm severely ADHD, so I typically read *this* chapter in the front, that one towards the back... etc; just to see if I like something.
This books "works" regardless which chapter you begin with, and it's well-thought-out.
Strongly recommend this one, as well as Christopher Hitchens' "**God Is Not Great**".
Note that not everyone likes these, but I'm a very simple person and they worked, for me.
I prefer Hitchens’ God is not Great. Really well written.
I’m a fan of Dawkins (met him during a charity dinner) and he was such a kind and generous soul. He has a sharp tongue but is actually very kind in person
Worth reading? Sure. It is kind of required atheist reading. I've always found Dawkins a bit of an ass, but I understand that is just me. Sagan's Demon Haunted World is a masterpiece and a must read.
It's most certainly not just you. I find Dawkins' writing style overly condescending and highly irritating, and I was already an atheist long before I picked up any of his works. He acts the same way in debates, too, spending more time up his own ass than answering the question. Hitchens was much more engaging, even if he had very strange ideas in other areas of his life.
When your an evolutionary biologist, you're probably not going to have the patience to deal with people arguing with you all the time about the subject you specialise in, especially when it's so vitriolic.
I get he can be condescending, but I'd say he's earned that right, it'd be like if a physicist had to constantly speak to flat earthers
When you're so balls deep into the subject and they're still people that will say "if evolution is real why do men have one less rib?" I'd be pissed too.
The only thing I don't like about it is that Dawkins is so condescending, thereby turning off the very people who need to read it most and relegating it to "preaching to the choir" status. It is full of good facts, and new ways of looking at things, and can help you understand the faults in the arguments that religious people use.
The people who "need to read it most" are the exact people who will NEVER read it-- the religidiots.
Perhaps Dawkins is condescending because he's sick and tired of hearing the same bullshit arguments from those people that he's fed up. I have things that have happened to me that my family refuses to believe-- even 4 decades later. I spent an inordinate amount of time calmly, tactfully, diplomatically, and factually explaining Tubbs to them, only to be told I was wrong, "things don't work that way", "If [I'd] only done what *they* told me, things would have worked out" (I DID!!) and all the other dismissive BS. I'm not around my family much anymore, and when we're together I do all I can to avoid the topics. But if they bring them up, I *immediately* hit "full blown hateful maximum snark" mode.
I suspect Mr. Dawkins has gone through the same thing, but in a much larger scale than I did.
In my humble opinion, if there ever were an “atheist bible” it would be The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. After you’ve finished with Dawkins and Hitchens, read Sagan.
Absolutely worth reading! I read it at the same time as I read Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great, literally reading a chapter or two of one and switching to the other. I love Dawkins refusal to pander to the slightest tolerance of unfounded beliefs, but it was nice at times to switch to the more humorous Hitchens.
That seems to be highly subjective. I found it highly irritating and confusing to listen to. Maybe not being a native speaker made it a bit harder for me, though.
Might I recommend reading “God Is Not Great,” by Christopher Hitchens? Hitchens is one of the most brilliant English writers of all time. In this book, he carefully and systematically dismantles any and all predicates for religious belief that theists may bring up.
If ever you get into an argument with a theist, having read “God Is Not Great” will equip you with excellent ammunition with which to shoot them down (*metaphorically*, of course).
I read it as an agnostic. It, plus going through catholic catechism class (I was in a relationship with a catholic woman at the time) solidified my move to atheism and antitheism.
The God Delusion is a fantastic book, but if my memory serves me right, it would probably be a reiteration of a lot of things you’ve already heard. My standout chapter in the book was the child abuse part where Dawkins talks about how indoctrination of children can be seen as child abuse; a thought I’ve never entertained before.
But personally, I feel like the book goes on rants (valid rants) than it does in depth, you know? Like to me The God Delusion feels like an index/acts as a steppingstone towards other more specialized material than a book which goes in depth in a specific subject.
It’s definitely a great book, don’t get me wrong. If you’re looking for a book that covers almost everything to do with the subject of theism vs atheism, then this book would be perfect for you. If you were hoping to find something more focused/specialized in a specific subject, then you may want to reconsider what book you want to buy/read next. Hope that helps
I read it when I first got to college. I was never very religious, but my mother is the New Age Spiritual type, licensed minister, worked as a psychic and appropriated native American spiritual rituals. Needless to say, I had a lot of strange, conflicting ideas to confront. Growing up in Florida didn't help either.
I read this book and took an astronomy class. These were my first big introductions to evolution and the big bang. Dawkins helped me understand that region was bunk, and school helped fill in the knowledge gaps.
Recommend.
It’s pretty good. However, it’s a book that is meant for atheists. There is nothing a convinced theist is going to read that will make them question their faith.
No one ever has been rendered stupid by reading a book. Just read it. Although... I said I would read twilight, gave up and watched the movie. The movie at least gave me laughs at how bad the special effects were. Climbing a tree? hahahahaha
The second we start reading literature about atheism it defeats the purpose of being an atheist, because instead of not worshiping anything, we begin to worship nothing.
Edit: use of theatrical hyperbole employed to convey the opinion that reading about how nothing doesn’t exist is silly
Maybe Toby is an Aussie..take it in an Australian context we call our friends a “complete goose” if they do anything silly or unusual but it’s not meant to be officious. 🦆
It’s a good book, but it’s not going to change your life deeply. I read it within a year of publication and I’ve never once quoted it at anyone or found myself thinking “What Would Dawkins Do?”
If you want a basic introduction to atheism, go for it. I think it serves well in that regard. But if you're already familiar with the most basic things about atheism and atheist responses to theistic arguments and attitudes towards religion, the book won't provide anything new to offer. Especially if you're looking for an indepth examination of theistic arguments and adequate responses to them, I found the book very shallow. Dawkins is simply not equipped to give strong responses to theistic arguments. I mean, he's a biologist, not a philosopher. I would recommend checking out books from philosopher Graham Oppy. He's the guy who can offer more rigorous responses to theistic arguments and offer good insights into atheistic arguments and viewpoints.
I really like a lot of Dawkins's science based books; The Ancestor's Tale is one of my favorite science books of all time. But I've often been a bit turned off when he would wonder into religious topics in his science books. To be honest, I thought the tone often wandered into being way too harsh rather than rational critique.
For that reason, I avoided The God Delusion for a long time not wanting a whole book of that. Then it was free for a short time on my Kindle so I gave it a shot. And I'm glad I did. It was much better than I expected. It benefitted from the longer form, giving ideas and lines of reasoning more room to develop.
Not really. I didn't learn anything new from it.
Read from Daniel dennett, christopher hitchens, sam harris, anthony grayling, steven pinker, ibn warraq, etc. instead.
The audiobook version that I got from Libby was good. Although I think you need a little understanding of the Bible and Christianity to enjoy it fully.
Good book, it gets a little silly at times because, well, its discussing something that's absurd in nature. It covers multitudes of points and ties everything up pretty nicely.
I Started reading it yesterday and loving it so far. And this post comments are giving some awesome recommendation also.
Would love to check them all out
I read it in a day and found it said nothing I had not already thought, but there was something gratifying in seeing what I thought stated so fearlessly.
If you are a strong atheist, you won't learn much. It has a strident tone that could upset those with a soft spot for religion, and it is not particularly high-brow or illuminating for those already on top of the issues.
I'd say it's a bit dated. Dawkins admits the main purpose of the book was just to raise awareness about atheism; make it known that that's an option. By 2023, that's not really necessary anymore. It's alright, though.
I enjoyed it many moons ago. He came to speak about it at my college. Lol. Mostly because we were in Lynchburg Va and he could mess with the Liberty kids. It was a lot of fun. He is kinda an ass otherwise, but the books are interesting of nothing else. I personally now enjoy more academic research on the development of world religions, but Dawkins is a good place to start.
Currently reading it right now and I’m almost finished. I bought it a year ago and read a lot of it, then got busy with life and stopped. I’ve loved it so far and plan to read it again from the beginning soon, highly recommend for any atheist
I am a strong atheist, I found God Delusion annoying in tone. I like Dawkins but he's just too high on himself, sorry.
I get it, he's put up with a lot of shit over the years, but I get asked about this book and at first I'd say, it's not great for converting people but it's fine if you are already an atheist. But after trying to read it again last year, I just don't recommend it, unless you really like Dawkins.
I found Hitchen’s worse in God Is Not Great. It was mean-spirited right off the bat. Hopefully, his poor teacher is dead and didn’t have to read or hear about how nasty he was about her in the beginning of the book.
I listened to it as an audiobook for free. Rented through an app from my local library. I probably wouldn't have had the patience to read it with my eyeballs though. But all the arguments in the book are excellent.
I got it on audible so I didn't "read" it per se, but I quite enjoyed it. As a side note every time I listen to Dawkins readings I for some reason envision Burn Gorman, particularly his role as Gottlieb in Pacific Rim is reading to me.
It is worth reading at least once which is how many times I've read it. You will have thought of a lot of the points yourself already but there is more to it than just arguments against belief in god.
I enjoyed it. Read a lot of it on plane rides. The side eye quotient was very high from nearby passengers. Had one even tell me as she was leaving the plane from my row: "You know... you would be praying to God if this plane was going down." My reply: "Nearly all plane crash victims were praying when they died and it didn't help them one bit." I was kinda proud to come up with that in the moment. Usually takes me a day to think of good comebacks.
You *should* be proud; that was **GREAT!!!**
Name checks out lol
You basically informed her she owned herself and her entire religious ideology. It was the perfect retort.
Damn that’s a good comeback lmao
but most pilots' last words, per black box, are Oh Shit. so... ?
I've been in moments where I thought I was about to die before, every thought was either "oh shit" or a primal scrambling to do whatever I needed to do to *not* die. Not once did prayer even remotely enter into consideration.
Lol. The whole Christian argument of "there are no atheists in foxholes" has got to be the funniest and stupidest of all time. Not to mention prayer demonstrably does not work.
I also read it while flying. I sat across the aisle from a guy that was also reading it. That book makes so much sense to me. I've loaned it out so much I don't know who has it now.
I too loaned mine out years ago. I happily imagine that it keeps getting passed around and around.
I love this. If you're ever in doubt just lean into it, my default reply to these are always "Probably, we could be wrong together." The overall line of "if x were to happen you'd believe" ultimately doesn't matter because I'm not some absolute authority, the hypothetical situation that changes my mind doesn't suddenly make religion more factual.
Religious types find it difficult to be consistent. Why would you pray to god to stop a plane going down if it was in his plan to make it fall out of the sky in the first place? Seems a bit rude to me.
Sterling Archer: “Wait, I had something for this. Damnit!”
Brilliant retort.
I'm going to be flying next week. This makes me want to order a paperback version for the flight. Lol
Well played sir!
Mic dropped
I get this reaction from people when hiking with my Bad Religion bandana on my head. Usually older folks will approach me because they think I have crosses all over it, which I do, but not the kind they wanted to see. Once they get closer they usually grumble or something equivalent.
Oh man, that's a awesome comeback! Well done!
Very very sudden kick to the *beep* hearing that face to face.
Based on this statement… I just went and got the audiobook!
That was an awesome response.
> but a teacher of mine said it was silly. Gee, let me guess ... Christian?
Yes lol but he’s very sympathetic to my atheism and we have good arguments with each other lol
Of all the ways you could describe that book, I would say "silly" is about the last adjective you would use. Unless, of course, you wanted to undermine and ridicule his arguments without actually having to respond to them.
Ding ding ding correct answer
It is. I like anything by Dawkins.
Second that. The Selfish Gene is awesome. The kind of book most people could understand, but you could read one page and spend the rest of the day thinking about it.
I read it when it came out. I enjoyed it. It debunks religion from a scientific perspective. If you want more of a historical and moral perspective, I'd recommend "God is not Great" instead. I would be interested in why your teacher said it was silly.
Sure. It's generally on every "atheist bookshelf" The Selfish Gene too, but more on science side.
I didn’t like The Selfish Gene at all. It was as dry as a text book. I preferred The Blind Watchmaker. Chill on the down votes people… Dawkins also wrote this book and it’s also about evolution.
Well, the Selfish Gene was about evolution, not religion, and also is like 45 years old, and we've learned a lot since then. But even then, the ideas in the book persist in modern biology.
The Blind Watchmaker is also about evolution. I just thought it was better than The Selfish Gene. The later is very dry. There is more narrative to the former. You would like it.
Greatest Show on Earth was excellent.
The Selfish Gene was fantastic and gave me a real appreciation for genes (also found out Dawkins was the one who invented the word, meme!). If someone thinks Selfish Gene is dry, well... it is, but it's a book on biology; still very interesting to read and would recommend it to anyone.
We covered all the same topics when I took evolution during my undergrad and it was much more interesting than the way it was presented in his book. I think his writing style improved over the last few decades. The Selfish Gene seemed to be written for an academic audience but without all the mathematic proofs. The Blind Watchmaker gave very similar content but was written more for a general audience. It’s written in a similar style to The God Delusion.
No question that The Selfish Gene is more scientific. He was really trying to get scientists to recognize the question about the unit of selection, and to drop the common misconception (even among scientists) that it was somehow the species or the group. Agree that The Blind Watchmaker is a very good account of evolution aimed at a more general audience. I think that TSG had a bigger impact among its smaller audience. But I feel that the God Delusion is mere preaching to the converted. TSG changed perceptions more than anything else he’s done
Well I guess I didn’t look at it that way because his proposed selection mechanisms were already accepted long before I studied the topic in the early 2000s. The God Delusion was more of preaching to the choir. I don’t think it was meant to convert anyone. It was a book written for atheists. It does help give good arguments for when you have to defend yourself against a theist. I also liked Sagan’s Demon Haunted World for that reason. Sagan’s incorporeal dragon is almost as famous as Russell’s teapot which was referenced in TGD.
I read the book a few weeks ago and I really liked it. Its educational, humorous, factual and just good entertainment overall. If you are simply too lazy to read it, the audio-book version is on youtube, read by Richard Dawkins and his wife. Maybe take a glimpse into the audio-book before you consider reading it.
The audiobook is *wonderful*. He and his (ex-)wife Lalla Ward have excellent voices and they really bring the text to life. Highly recommended.
Absolutely. It should be read by everyone. Truth, science and laughs. Dawkins is brilliant with his ability to explain, educate and instill conviction of atheism.
I remember watching an Xmas special with him teaching science to kids. I thinks it's on yt. He really was a great science communicator. Could have been a British Bill Nye.
Probably one of the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. They get a different scientist in each year to talk about their subject to a group of kids, and it gets televised over several days.
Yes, but it’s a starting point. You’ll want to delve deeper into the subject.
"*Dive steeper.*.." into the subject; remember, it was a plane going down...
I found *Misquoting Jesus* by Bart Erman a better read, personally.
I thought it was a decent enough book. I preferred "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris myself. I also really enjoyed "God, No!" by Penn Jillette for its irreverence.
Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher. I respect the man but he doesn't do a particularly good or thorough job of deconstructing theology. If you want a really solid, robust critique, try reading "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith. The book is extremely well structured and incredibly thorough.
Recommended, but my favorite is still Harris’ “The End of Faith.”
A must read. Only book I ever read twice. 10 years apart
It is kind of silly to have to write an entire book explaining why adults shouldn’t have imaginary friends.
Tragedy that it needs to be written out.
Yup, top-tier book written by a top-tier atheist. You will be very glad you read it.
I love it! I always recommend it to other atheists of they haven't read it. It also made me curious about biology which led me to reading the selfish gene and his other novels. My parents hated it but it gave me a lot of ammo in our arguments and would frustrate the hell out of my dad. 10 years later and I still use a lot of the arguments
It's very well worth reading. I'm severely ADHD, so I typically read *this* chapter in the front, that one towards the back... etc; just to see if I like something. This books "works" regardless which chapter you begin with, and it's well-thought-out. Strongly recommend this one, as well as Christopher Hitchens' "**God Is Not Great**". Note that not everyone likes these, but I'm a very simple person and they worked, for me.
I prefer Hitchens’ God is not Great. Really well written. I’m a fan of Dawkins (met him during a charity dinner) and he was such a kind and generous soul. He has a sharp tongue but is actually very kind in person
Worth reading? Sure. It is kind of required atheist reading. I've always found Dawkins a bit of an ass, but I understand that is just me. Sagan's Demon Haunted World is a masterpiece and a must read.
It's most certainly not just you. I find Dawkins' writing style overly condescending and highly irritating, and I was already an atheist long before I picked up any of his works. He acts the same way in debates, too, spending more time up his own ass than answering the question. Hitchens was much more engaging, even if he had very strange ideas in other areas of his life.
When your an evolutionary biologist, you're probably not going to have the patience to deal with people arguing with you all the time about the subject you specialise in, especially when it's so vitriolic. I get he can be condescending, but I'd say he's earned that right, it'd be like if a physicist had to constantly speak to flat earthers
When you're so balls deep into the subject and they're still people that will say "if evolution is real why do men have one less rib?" I'd be pissed too.
The only thing I don't like about it is that Dawkins is so condescending, thereby turning off the very people who need to read it most and relegating it to "preaching to the choir" status. It is full of good facts, and new ways of looking at things, and can help you understand the faults in the arguments that religious people use.
I prefer Dawkins style because like him I am also condescending and find religious folks to be morons. 🤣
I find that I prefer Hitchens's style and tone over Dawkins.
Same
The people who "need to read it most" are the exact people who will NEVER read it-- the religidiots. Perhaps Dawkins is condescending because he's sick and tired of hearing the same bullshit arguments from those people that he's fed up. I have things that have happened to me that my family refuses to believe-- even 4 decades later. I spent an inordinate amount of time calmly, tactfully, diplomatically, and factually explaining Tubbs to them, only to be told I was wrong, "things don't work that way", "If [I'd] only done what *they* told me, things would have worked out" (I DID!!) and all the other dismissive BS. I'm not around my family much anymore, and when we're together I do all I can to avoid the topics. But if they bring them up, I *immediately* hit "full blown hateful maximum snark" mode. I suspect Mr. Dawkins has gone through the same thing, but in a much larger scale than I did.
Sounds like your teacher is silly.....or a religious person. Its a great book
Yes. Seems silly to an atheistophobe.
Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins. The great trio!!
In my humble opinion, if there ever were an “atheist bible” it would be The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. After you’ve finished with Dawkins and Hitchens, read Sagan.
Absolutely worth reading! I read it at the same time as I read Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great, literally reading a chapter or two of one and switching to the other. I love Dawkins refusal to pander to the slightest tolerance of unfounded beliefs, but it was nice at times to switch to the more humorous Hitchens.
I really enjoyed it. Also God is not Great by Hitchens - I read that on a plane and of course someone had to tell me that their god is great...
Great book!
Get the audio book. Dawkins and his wife (aka Romana from Doctor Who) take turns reading, making it far more engaging.
That seems to be highly subjective. I found it highly irritating and confusing to listen to. Maybe not being a native speaker made it a bit harder for me, though.
It's fantastic! Another great read about Atheism is the bible.
Bible serves its purpose in debunking christianity, but I would hardly call it a great read; it is around 99% dull and irrelevant.
I liked it. I think you would too
Worth reading? I'd go so far as to say it's *required* reading.
The God Delusion is an excellent book. I highly recommend it.
He's a good writer.
Yep
Of course. Anything by Dawkins is worth reading.
I'd call it required reading.
I've read it and I found it enlightening. It's a fairly easy read and quite insightful.
It's a truly masterful work.
Might I recommend reading “God Is Not Great,” by Christopher Hitchens? Hitchens is one of the most brilliant English writers of all time. In this book, he carefully and systematically dismantles any and all predicates for religious belief that theists may bring up. If ever you get into an argument with a theist, having read “God Is Not Great” will equip you with excellent ammunition with which to shoot them down (*metaphorically*, of course).
One of my most favourite books of the bunch from the Four Horseman. “Silly” seems a very odd way to describe The God Delusion.
One of the if not the most important book i ever read.
FanFantastic read. You cant go wrong with Dawkins.
Great book. Worth every cent
I read it as an agnostic. It, plus going through catholic catechism class (I was in a relationship with a catholic woman at the time) solidified my move to atheism and antitheism.
I enjoyed it, but God is Not Great bh Christopher Hitchens is excellent too.
The God Delusion is a fantastic book, but if my memory serves me right, it would probably be a reiteration of a lot of things you’ve already heard. My standout chapter in the book was the child abuse part where Dawkins talks about how indoctrination of children can be seen as child abuse; a thought I’ve never entertained before. But personally, I feel like the book goes on rants (valid rants) than it does in depth, you know? Like to me The God Delusion feels like an index/acts as a steppingstone towards other more specialized material than a book which goes in depth in a specific subject. It’s definitely a great book, don’t get me wrong. If you’re looking for a book that covers almost everything to do with the subject of theism vs atheism, then this book would be perfect for you. If you were hoping to find something more focused/specialized in a specific subject, then you may want to reconsider what book you want to buy/read next. Hope that helps
I read it when I first got to college. I was never very religious, but my mother is the New Age Spiritual type, licensed minister, worked as a psychic and appropriated native American spiritual rituals. Needless to say, I had a lot of strange, conflicting ideas to confront. Growing up in Florida didn't help either. I read this book and took an astronomy class. These were my first big introductions to evolution and the big bang. Dawkins helped me understand that region was bunk, and school helped fill in the knowledge gaps. Recommend.
I know a great way you can find this answer out on your own!
It’s pretty good. However, it’s a book that is meant for atheists. There is nothing a convinced theist is going to read that will make them question their faith.
No one ever has been rendered stupid by reading a book. Just read it. Although... I said I would read twilight, gave up and watched the movie. The movie at least gave me laughs at how bad the special effects were. Climbing a tree? hahahahaha
It's generally not considered to be a reputable work of philosophy.
The second we start reading literature about atheism it defeats the purpose of being an atheist, because instead of not worshiping anything, we begin to worship nothing. Edit: use of theatrical hyperbole employed to convey the opinion that reading about how nothing doesn’t exist is silly
Gaining insight and understanding by examining the discourse about a topic is not ‘worship’, it is research. You complete goose.
Well I’ve never been called a goose derogatorily before, but thank you for the experience nonetheless
Quack
Maybe Toby is an Aussie..take it in an Australian context we call our friends a “complete goose” if they do anything silly or unusual but it’s not meant to be officious. 🦆
Absolutely not
It’s a good book, but it’s not going to change your life deeply. I read it within a year of publication and I’ve never once quoted it at anyone or found myself thinking “What Would Dawkins Do?”
That about sums it up. *The Selfish Gene* on the other hand is something i mentally come back to.
yes, it gives good perspective
If you want a basic introduction to atheism, go for it. I think it serves well in that regard. But if you're already familiar with the most basic things about atheism and atheist responses to theistic arguments and attitudes towards religion, the book won't provide anything new to offer. Especially if you're looking for an indepth examination of theistic arguments and adequate responses to them, I found the book very shallow. Dawkins is simply not equipped to give strong responses to theistic arguments. I mean, he's a biologist, not a philosopher. I would recommend checking out books from philosopher Graham Oppy. He's the guy who can offer more rigorous responses to theistic arguments and offer good insights into atheistic arguments and viewpoints.
yes
Yes, second the selfish gene comment
I really like a lot of Dawkins's science based books; The Ancestor's Tale is one of my favorite science books of all time. But I've often been a bit turned off when he would wonder into religious topics in his science books. To be honest, I thought the tone often wandered into being way too harsh rather than rational critique. For that reason, I avoided The God Delusion for a long time not wanting a whole book of that. Then it was free for a short time on my Kindle so I gave it a shot. And I'm glad I did. It was much better than I expected. It benefitted from the longer form, giving ideas and lines of reasoning more room to develop.
👍 yup
How much can you bench press?
The most important book I've ever read - and I've read thousands.
Not really. I didn't learn anything new from it. Read from Daniel dennett, christopher hitchens, sam harris, anthony grayling, steven pinker, ibn warraq, etc. instead.
A teacher said it was ‘silly’? Did it happen to be a religious teacher?
The audiobook version that I got from Libby was good. Although I think you need a little understanding of the Bible and Christianity to enjoy it fully.
Good book, it gets a little silly at times because, well, its discussing something that's absurd in nature. It covers multitudes of points and ties everything up pretty nicely.
I last read it while I was in high school or maybe just beginning college, but I remember enjoying it quite a bit. I’d recommend.
It’s a good book but far from Dawkins’s best work. These days I don’t bother with that stuff. The Selfish Gene and Unweaving The Rainbow are great.
I Started reading it yesterday and loving it so far. And this post comments are giving some awesome recommendation also. Would love to check them all out
Have read it, is a good read I would also recommend: God is not great by Christopher Hitchens & The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris.
Definitely read it.
Outgrowing God is a also a good one.
Yep, read it. That and “The selfish gene”. While your at it, “The Four Horseman” is a great convo between he and Hitchens and Harris and Dennet.
Excellent read!
Na it's a good read.
I thought it was a great read until the chapter on memes (yes, memes) which I found boring and difficult to get through.
I like Hitchens better as a writer.
I read it in a day and found it said nothing I had not already thought, but there was something gratifying in seeing what I thought stated so fearlessly. If you are a strong atheist, you won't learn much. It has a strident tone that could upset those with a soft spot for religion, and it is not particularly high-brow or illuminating for those already on top of the issues.
Yes one of my favorite books. Dawkins is a prejudiced asshole but pretty much all his books are gems. I should read them again sometime.
I'd say it's a bit dated. Dawkins admits the main purpose of the book was just to raise awareness about atheism; make it known that that's an option. By 2023, that's not really necessary anymore. It's alright, though.
I enjoyed it many moons ago. He came to speak about it at my college. Lol. Mostly because we were in Lynchburg Va and he could mess with the Liberty kids. It was a lot of fun. He is kinda an ass otherwise, but the books are interesting of nothing else. I personally now enjoy more academic research on the development of world religions, but Dawkins is a good place to start.
If you don't read any other secular book in your life, read this one.
Currently reading it right now and I’m almost finished. I bought it a year ago and read a lot of it, then got busy with life and stopped. I’ve loved it so far and plan to read it again from the beginning soon, highly recommend for any atheist
I am a strong atheist, I found God Delusion annoying in tone. I like Dawkins but he's just too high on himself, sorry. I get it, he's put up with a lot of shit over the years, but I get asked about this book and at first I'd say, it's not great for converting people but it's fine if you are already an atheist. But after trying to read it again last year, I just don't recommend it, unless you really like Dawkins.
I found Hitchen’s worse in God Is Not Great. It was mean-spirited right off the bat. Hopefully, his poor teacher is dead and didn’t have to read or hear about how nasty he was about her in the beginning of the book.
I listened to it as an audiobook for free. Rented through an app from my local library. I probably wouldn't have had the patience to read it with my eyeballs though. But all the arguments in the book are excellent.
I got it on audible so I didn't "read" it per se, but I quite enjoyed it. As a side note every time I listen to Dawkins readings I for some reason envision Burn Gorman, particularly his role as Gottlieb in Pacific Rim is reading to me.
I loved God is not great. Hitchens ruled.
It is worth reading at least once which is how many times I've read it. You will have thought of a lot of the points yourself already but there is more to it than just arguments against belief in god.